C001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0054 — Prompt Claims v2
Run	2026-03-31
Claim	C001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Criteria defined before searching	Yes — defined "published AI research system prompt implementing analytical rigor" as inclusion criterion
Criteria applied consistently	Yes — applied same standard to Choe's prompt and competing frameworks

Notes: Eligibility criteria were clear and consistently applied.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — searched for Choe's prompt directly and for competing frameworks separately
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — S02 specifically targeted falsification of "first/most complete"
All results dispositioned	Yes — 20 results across 2 searches, all dispositioned
Source diversity achieved	Partial — limited to web-searchable sources; private/informal prompt sharing channels not accessible

Notes: The main gap is that system prompts shared informally (Discord, private repos, GitHub gists) are not searchable. This is an inherent limitation.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes
Evidence typed consistently	Yes
ACH matrix applied	Yes
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes

Notes: Consistent evaluation across both sources.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H3 was given full consideration despite being ultimately eliminated
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — AI-Researcher framework surfaced as competing evidence
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — medium confidence reflects the inherent limitation
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — explicitly noted the unknowable comparison set

Notes: The assessment appropriately hedges on the "first" claim while confirming the "complete" aspect.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	Prompt implements nine ICD 203 tradecraft standards	WebFetch confirmed: nine tradecraft standards including inline citations, uncertainty language, competing hypotheses, source credibility audits	Yes
SRC01	Originally paywalled on Patreon	WebFetch confirmed: "sourced from a previously paywalled Patreon article now made freely available"	Yes
SRC02	AI-Researcher launched March 2025	Search results confirmed: "launched on March 4, 2025" and "NeurIPS 2025 Spotlight"	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Notes: All claims in the assessment accurately reflect the source material.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was sound. The main limitation is structural — the comparison set for "first/most complete" is inherently unknowable, which is a gap in the evidence landscape rather than a bias in the research process.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: Medium. The researcher's declared bias toward IC frameworks and professional interest in the methodology could lead to overstating Choe's novelty. Mitigated by actively searching for competing frameworks and assigning "Likely" rather than "Almost certain."
Anchoring bias risk: Low. The assessment was not anchored to the researcher's framing — the "partially correct" conclusion challenges the researcher's implied position.